in that detailed? you are going to give us detailed. >> i will answer again and let the comptroller -- >> and i will give up because it is late and your explanation may work with some other folks. >> these things tend >> later explanations are not usually better gratifying than earlier. again, what drove the decision to do it this way is a reality of the uncertainty. commit -- i get the law and i get all that. these are recommendations that i make. congress makes the decisions. put, in my opinion,

recommendations of our leadership on this, but i could not commit to all of these things not having some assurance to have the capability to fund these things. >> you are giving us with the same assurance he they list as go for. the money would how could you give us a list of ifre 115 would be spent there is all of this uncertainty , which there is, and you are wise to be realistic. you have the reality of uncertainty and you cannot commit to these things, these larger numbers.

if you are not going to give us a list, why can you not give us the stronger numbers? that's what i'm trying to understand. a it's a good question and fair one, mr. chairman. the problem with the particular areas of the carrier air strike that it takes a long time to plant. sequestration remains the law of the land we felt it prudent to put some of those items where we felt where we should put it in the lower levels where there is thenderstanding that appropriations will change and we can within the resource but we felt that we should come a for the sake of prudence, planned for these major items that take time to plan ahead. does that help? >> no. >> i'm willing to surrender.

>> what is the end strength ? >> fiscal 17army they will be at 450,000. 2018-20 19 they go down. >> that is in their? >> you don't not have it there yet, but yes. about army now is 510,000. >> by the end of next year it will be? >> by the end of fiscal 2017 it will be down to about 450,000 under the plan. >> under the five-year plan, a goes down to 420,000? >> if you give indications of an appropriate level, we will stop the drawdown at around 450,000. >> that is something you are telling us that that is not reflected in either the current budget document or the document

that you will be giving to us as billion is $120 going to be spent. right? >> we felt we needed to plan ahead. >> secretary hagel, i have looked out the numbers and i know the defense department has but yourious reductions have the whole field in and you are going to take a $20 billion reduction. that would have been devastating . after that, the defense department and the other discretionary accounts are supposed to grow at two and a half percent per year. i'm going to be looking at these numbers. i know you do not have to tighten belt across the board and allow a tough decision to be

made but before we talk about putting even more money in in addition to the legislation, we are going to have to season numbers and be pretty specific about it. we will be looking at it. i will just say that to you. >> if i could just respond briefly? last year's presidents budget fully funded the january 20 12 strategy. we are $31 billion below that plan and $45 billion below that in the budget. yes, the planet, but what was the difference in the numbers. >> it had been flat for the next three years in nominal terms and now it is coming down in real terms. and from lastear year is not an increase? it was flat for three years. greatestit is the threat to our national security

and he has been proven right. we have greater threats right now to our national security. the debt is going down but the threat is going up so i have to disagree with senator sessions on that one. >> defense is going down because the defect -- deficit. >> what you are asking for is very reasonable in terms of this and 56nal $26 billion billion dollars overall for defense and nondefense. forill be given the pay from the administration the next few weeks. many of us have them that are perfectly reasonable. we pay for what we need to do as a country including closing some of these loopholes which are egregious. these offshore tax loopholes, that allow the most profitable corporations in the world to avoid paying taxes by shifting their intellectual

property to tax havens. the loopholes that allow the hedge fund managers to be paying half of the tax rate that people who work for them pay. there are some unjustified tax loopholes in this tax code which we should close even if we had no deficit. given the fact we have real needs including security needs, which we much fun -- must fund adequately, there are places we can fund it. $26 billion for defense and 56 billion dollars overall so i hope we take the leap the administration has given us on this budget and fund the full 56 billion dollars. there will be differences how and whether we should do it. it seems to me to be absolutely clear that we need some bipartisan cooperation in order to achieve that. you three have been terrific in terms of your patients and we are grateful for your s ervice. smileary hale has a big

on your face. we now stand adjourned with our thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

> secretary of state john kerry on the russian foreign met to discuss the situation in ukraine. he urged moscow to engage in direct talks with ukraine over mounting tensions in the country. we will get an update next on c-span. then, former irs official refuses to testify about the alleged scrutiny of conservative groups asking for tax exempt status. later, more about the administration's 2015 budget requests. like c-span, we bring public

affairs events directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a service to private industry. we are created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. quick secretary of state john kerry and russian foreign rov met toergei lav discuss the unrest in ukraine and the russian intervention in the country. he spoke to reporters briefly after the meeting. this is courtesy of russia today. >> we have just had a meeting with john kerry regarding the situation in the ukraine and the actions that our partners are trying to undertake with the

russian nato council and others. we need this kind of atmosphere and it's very difficult to work in the atmosphere of ultimatums and threats. it would be very difficult in this type of environment to stabilize the situation. we have agreed that we need to toport all ukrainians achieve -- no, to implement what was achieved on february 21. right now, we will go to the foreign ministry of france. other parties will join us including france, poland, and germany, foreign ministers who were also present when this was signed on february 21. thank you.

>> secretary jack lew announced guarantees to help ukraine with its political position. testifying before the senate finance committee, he said do not makections sense. >> before a begin, let me say a few words about the situation in ukraine. territorial integrity is breached by international law. we are looking into a wide range of options including sanctions and ways to increase the political and economic isolation. the ultimate goal is to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. as they prepare for elections, it's critical that they support

their efforts to restore economic stability. i have still -- i have spoken with ukrainian prime minister and they say they are ready to adopt a vital economic reforms. we have been working closely with partners and congress to develop an assistant package to help ukrainian government implement the reforms needed to restore stability and return to economic growth. as part of this international effort, the u.s. has developed a package of bilateral assistance focusing on meeting the most pressing needs. the united states will not theease our commitment to imf, it's important to know that for every one dollar the u.s. contributes other countries provide $4 more.

we are at the forefront in urging the fund to play an active wrist responder role in ukraine, it is imperative that we secure package of imf legislation now to sit -- to with our leading influential choice in this institution. i want to be clear that even as we deal with the unfolding events, we continue to focus on the objective of expanding opportunities for all americans. >> senator dick durbin also weighed in speaking on the senate floor for 10 minutes. you can watch all of our programs on c-span.org. >> sunday was a perfect chicago afternoon. not in terms of whether, -- weather, but in terms of my events on the schedule. my first opera was on navy pier

for a lithuanian independence day celebration. it was important to me personally because my mother was born there and i happened to be on hand for the latest round in lithuania when the soviet union was finally dispelled them the country was allowed to stand on its feet. there was regional food, dancing, music. a sectionve to go to of chicago known as the ukrainian village. asked after church on sunday if my friends in the ukrainian american community would gather and invite a telephone call from .he american ambassador i expected a nice crowd. i did not expect an overflow crowd, but that is what i found. the concern of ukrainian americans and many others about the situation in the country is very tense and very personal. many of them have family

members, strong, cultural family ties and they are all very worried. are called in and giving a few moments of remarks and questions. then we met later to talk about some of the possibilities. i looked through the audience and found many of my polish friends, lithuanian friends, friends from all of the different ethnic groups that had endured some form of soviet or russian aggression in the past. i had hoped, mr. president, that we had turned a corner in ukraine, that the difficult events for coming to an end, but that did not happen. we saw horrific violence in the square and sadly, many innocent people killed. just as ukraine seem to be emerging from this difficult

time with the departure of and thet yanukovych russians moving into crimea. moderated some. i don't know. it changes by the hour. but their decision to have a show of force in crimea is one we cannot ignore. that operation in crimea was so well orchestrated that it had to have been planned by russian president vladimir putin during the 22nd winter olympic games hosted in sochi, russia. can anyone imagine anything so crass or brazen as to lavishly try to present russia to the world as a peaceful and modern olympic nation while secretly planning a military occupation of another neighboring country? the russian taxpayers should get their $51 billion back that they paid to set up the olympics. it was money wasted by vladimir putin to try to create an

impression of a russia which sadly does not exist. mr. president, former ukrainian president viktor yanukovych freely elected, also squandered an historic opportunity to further modernize ukraine, to overcome corruption and to lift the aspirations of his people. he unnecessarily and cynically divided his nation, and instead of strengthening economic and political ties with europe, reforming his economy and respecting ukraine's historical ties to russia, he set off to become a pawn of moscow. he saw his survival politically teaming up with vladimir putin. as the emerging pictures from yanukovych's opulent palace illustrate, he enriched himself personally. his enablers, while allowing the country's promising yet troubled economy to deteriorate. ultimately, his government led a bloody assault on their own

people, using heavily armed snipers to massacre ukrainian people in the streets of kiev. i met with mr. yanukovych and many in his government just a year and a half ago. yanukovych said that he truly saw his country's future with greater ties to the west, but under enormous russian pressure, he was able to let go of his own political grudges and terrified of transparency that an association agreement with european union would mean for his corrupt regime, he ultimately put his own political future ahead of the globe of the needs of his own people. we all know the traj -- tragic consequences of such actions. just look at syria and venezuela. the results in ukraine were no different. i understand that the crimean region of ukraine has a long, complicated history. i understand that then-soviet

prime minister gave ukraine, never imagining the collapse of the soviet union and an independent ukraine to follow. let's be clear about what happened. ukraine wasn't joining nato. ukraine wasn't joining the european union. ukraine wasn't proposing cutting off its economic and political ties with usual. ukraine was simply contemplating signing a long negotiated trade agreement with the european union, and for that rationale alone, vladimir putin decided to militarily invade and occupy ukraine. now, i know mr. putin says he was protecting russian citizens, but there have been no credible examples of threats to any russian citizens in ukraine. in fact, "the new york times" reported this week that russian tourists have been sent to eastern ukraine where they are stirring up anger and resentment against the ukrainian government in kiev.

arguing that russia can militarily invade another country any time, to protect russian people is an ominous suggestion that raises alarms for independent sovereign nations all along the russian borders and also raises the chapters of history back in the middle of the 20th century, which we need not recount here in detail. one need only look at the two regions of georgia that have been militarily occupied by russia since 2008. russia continues to illegally occupy these areas and has erected fences along administrative lines and permanent military bases in violation of the cease-fire agreement negotiated with the european union. now, i have been there myself and i have seen the deeply troubling permanent bases and boundary fences in georgia. the president of the republic of georgia came to see me the day after the final ceremonies at sochi at the olympic ceremonies, and he said there was a report

that morning after the final ceremony that the russians were stringing barbed wire around the perimeters of the places they were occupying in georgia. russia even stopped some of the demarcation during the olympics but started, as i have said, again after the games' conclusion. russian actions in ukraine and georgia are a clear violation of international obligations and treaties. for example, russia was a signatory to the 1994 budapest memorandum. that reaffirmed its commitment to ukraine to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of that nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of ukraine, to refrain from economic coercion, to subordinate ukraine to russia's interests and to consult in the event the situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments. remember why the budapest memorandum was entered into by

russia, the united states and the united kingdom as well, as well as ukraine. it was entered into because the ukrainians were surrendering their nuclear weapons. they had decided to give up their nuclear arsenal as long as they had an assurance that they would be protected and their sovereignty would be respected. russians signed on and then summarily ignored it by basically the act of aggression in crimea in this last week. in 1997, the russian federation and ukraine signed a friendship treaty. it was during that time that russian president boris yeltsin said in kiev we respect and honor the territorial integrity of ukraine. as a participating state in the final act of the conference for security and cooperation in europe in 1975, russia committed to respect the sovereign equal and individuality of other participating states. mr. president, it is clear that in many respects, russia has violated the very agreements it signed.

it has shown an act of aggression in a sovereign nation of ukraine. now i will concede the situation is complicateed because of the basic agreement between russia and ukraine when it comes to that critical piece of real estate in the black sea, but it still does not warrant the efforts that have been made by putin to destabilize an effort toward peaceful government. mr. putin has argued that the change in government in kiev was just the mob in the street. nothing could be further from the truth. it occurred through its parliament and through its constitution and with the promise of an open and free election on may 25. it's up to us in the west and all countries that believe ukraine deserves our assistance and support to make sure that that election is carefully monitored, it is totally legal and free and the people of ukraine have the last word about their future and their leadership. mr. putin ought to be part of the observation team, at least

his representatives. so there is no argument about a free and fair election in ukraine. we also need to help this country that's going through some extremely difficult economic times. a recent article i read suggested ukraine needs our assistance way beyond the $1 billion which secretary kerry has talked about in his visit. but in order to achieve that, they're going to have to make some significant and maybe unpopular reforms in their economy, in their gas program and the like. it's tricky. to do that runs the risk of a popular backlash against these reforms but without the reforms, there could be no meaningful aid package. we need to stand with ukraine and ukraine needs to stand for the reforms necessary to strengthen their economy. this week i'm working with senators brown, shaheen, wicker, king, collins and warren warner to condemn the russian action in crimea.

there's more to be done. senator menendez talked -- the aid and the sanctions that may be necessary. i sincerely hope the sanctions won't be necessary. i hope vladimir putin and the russians understand they cannot show this kind of aggression toward crimea without a cost. but i hope they'll do it soon so that we can see the return of stability to ukraine. ukraine is a critically important country, the second largest country in europe today. it was a major part of the soviet union and its independence i'm sure has rankled mr. putin and his dreams of russian empire. but the people of ukraine should decide their future, not vladimir putin. we need to work with those people in ukraine to give them a chance at self-governance,to to pursues the values we share here in the united states. i hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will join us condemning

>> a house panel meets to look at u.s. foreign policy options in the region. the house foreign affairs committee has introduced a resolution condemning the violation of ukrainian sovereignty and calls for economic sanctions against russia. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern. pfeifferation with dan live starting at 8:10 a.m. eastern tomorrow. >> this is one of our favorite times of the year in c-span. the time when we get to announce the winners of our annual student documentary contest. it is called student cam. the 2014 theme for students who are interested in entering is what is the most important issue that congress should consider in 2014?

this year we received a record number of entries. 2000 355 entries that came from 46 states, the district of onvia, taiwan, and from the united arab emirates. students from around the country and some internationally. 8416 students participated either individually or in teams. one of the things that was special about the contest is we doubled the number of prizes and the amount of money. it went from a $50,000 contest to us giving away 100,000 dollars in prizes. that meant 150 for student documentarians, 50 prizes for teachers, and 97 students who received honorable mention. the grand prize this year,

$5,000 for the winning entry. there are three first base high school injuries divided regionally and each one of those top winners in the regions will receive $3000 and there is one first lace at the middle school level also receiving $3000. one of the reasons we do this is to hear what is on the minds of young people and the topics that students choose are a good way to measure what they are thinking about. here is the list of the top categories, top issues we received from students. number one, kids are thinking about the economy and they told us about this and their message to congress. second was gun legislation. third on the minds of students was education and education issues. we will tell you about the grand prize winners this year. it was a team area their topic was called earth first, fracking second. it was a -- a three person team

from long beach polytechnic high school. they are served by charter communications. the three team members in that group, we will be talking by phone with one of the embers of the team, emma larson, right now. what was your reaction when you heard that your team won the grand prize this year question mark >> we were shocked. we were in the room and we looked across at one another and we all could not believe it. >> when he finished the documentary, did you have a sense of how good it was? >> no, we did not. >> tell me how you got interested in the first place. who introduced you to it? >> our ninth grade government teacher. >> how did your team come together, were you able to pick who served or did the teacher assign them question mark >> we did pick our team members and we chose other people that we have known and we were comfortable and knew that we worked well

together. >> when you joined forces had any of you done documentaries before? >> no. >> how did the learned how to do them? >> we watched a lot of videos about how to make the documentaries and tips about editing and things like that. >> how did you choose the topic? >> we chose the topic by in our government class we have to complete these current events. i read an article about fracking and was immediately interested. one of us, we saw in our local paper and article about fracking and said it was happening two miles away. without that was crazy and when to start researching about it it becomes a fascinating topic. >> long beach has long had an oil industry because it is a big port and there is also a lot of oil drilling. you were surprised to find out that fracking was happening there as well. >> yeah.

the thing about fracking it is -- is it isn't regulated. there is no techniques, there is no water testing, that is really dangerous. >> is that the primary thing that you learned when you researched fracking? >> yes. >> what is the message you would like to have congress hear from the three of you as young people about fracking? >> we want congress to know that our country has a problem. that problem is the regulation of hydraulic fractionating. there is huge economic potential. it has to be regulated. it has to be safe. >> one of the things is to show both sides of the issue and you reference the fact that there is great economic and if it. give people listening a sense of why the economic aspect of this are important so you feel we have to get the regulation right. mix according to research published, fracking will create

2.5 million jobs by the year 2020. that is a huge number. that can do great things. we are in the middle of economic bad times and fracking and the oil industry could pull us out of that. >> who was the most interesting -- person you interviewed? >> terry greenberg. -- greenwood. the story of how fracking affected him. we researched people who were being affected and his name kept coming up. he had done so many interviews and youtube videos that he is an expert on the subject. >> what do you plan to do next with what you have learned either from the videography part or from the fracking lesson? >> hopefully we can talk to the local city officials in our city and have them regulate the fracking that is happening two miles away from our house. >> what are you plenty to do with the $5,000 and how did your school arc your win? >> with the $5,000 we're putting that to a trip that the three of

us will go on after we graduate from high school. our school is recognizing us, they get the money to spend on video cameras for next year and everyone is very excited and we can tell that people are proud of us. >> congressional nations -- congratulations to you for your national win. we are proud of all the students that entered. we got some great entries this year. it was terrific that your team was chosen as number one. congratulations. >> thank you. >> let's tell you more about the other winners that were chosen but before we do that to give you a sense of what the grand prize was like in comparison, let's watch a clip. >> dear congress. >> dear congress. >> dear congress. hydraulic fracturing is really important area in for the growth of our economy. if you want the critical support of the american people, some things we could change.

a need to investigate the impact that -- of hydraulic fracturing on seismic activity and the use of recycled water instead of freshwater. you need to regulate testing of water. most importantly, the halliburton loophole needs to be closed. you need to require public disclosure. >> just a short glimpse of the student can winning documentary. with a team of ninth graders

from long beach, california. i mentioned there are many winners across the united states and this year we did three regional winners at the high school level. we will tell you more about who won the top prizes for high school. getting with the top prize in high school, diagnosing the problem. the winners and three 12 graders in phoenix, arizona where they are served by cox communications. the topic on mental health diagnosis and treatment. and "we the people: genetically modified." by andrew demeter. time warner cable is their supplier. next, "murky future."

and that is a team of 10th-graders from silver spring, maryland. they are served by comcast. their topic was water pollution. the first prize and there is only one of these at the middle school level is on the nsa. that was done by a team of eighth graders from eastern middle school in silver spring, maryland and in the washington, d.c. suburbs. their customers of comcast cable and there's was on the big debate over government surveillance. we congratulate all the entrance -- entrants. those prizes are on view for you to see on our website. www.studentcam.org. >> house oversight committee issaman thereof m darrell

adjourned the committee meeting without getting democrats on the panel a chance to make a statement. democrats on the committee then tried to respond. the hearing is a little over 20 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. we are here today to continue a hearing that began on may 22,

2013, called the i.r.s. targeting americans for their political beliefs. the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about how and why the i.r.s. improperly scrutinized certain organizations that applied for tax exempt status. today we have recalled ms. lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the i.r.s. ms. lerner appeared at the may 22, 2013, hearing you should a subpoena and that subpoena remains in effect. before we resume our questioning, i'm going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the

i.r.s. and professing her innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advance notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement. during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement she spoke in detail about core issues under consideration at the hearing when she stated, i have not done anything wrong, i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner then stated her intention to invoke the fifth amendment and then in response to a request by ranking member cummings, she confirmed orally the authenticity of a document

that was entered into the record. she subsequently reinvoked her fifth amendment rights in response to several questions, she then refused to provide any substantive response to those questions. at that hearing, a member of the committee, mr. gowdy, stated that ms. lerner had waived her right to invoke the fifth amendment because she had given voluntary statement professing her innocence. i temporarily excused ms. lerner from the hearing and subsequently recessed the hearing to consider whether ms. lerner had in fact waived her fifth amendment rights. meanwhile, the committee's investigation proceeded without ms. lerner's testimony. to date we have conducted 33 bipartisan transcribed interviews of witnesses from the i.r.s.

we have heard witnesses' testimony during five committee and subcommittee hearings. because the i.r.s. is not full -- has not fully cooperated with the committee's investigation, i have issued three subpoenas for documents. the i.r.s. continues to withhold some of ms. lerner's emails from the committee. documents and testimony show that ms. lerner is uniquely positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand how and why the i.r.s. targeted conservative groups. at a business meeting on june 28, 2013, the committee approved a resolution rejecting ms. learner's claim of fifth amendment privilege based on her waiver at the may 22, 2013. after that vote, having made the determination that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights, the committee recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to rules. the committee voted and found that ms. lerner waived her fifth

amendment rights by making a statement on may 22, 2013. addition -- and additionally by affirming documents making fifth amendment rights. if she continues to refuse to answer questions from our members while she's under a subpoena, the committee may proceed to consider whether she should be held in contempt. since it's been 9 1/2 months since we started this hearing, i'm going to ask her to refirm her oath. let the record indicate the witness did answer in the affirmative. ms. lerner, put up slide one, please. in october, 2010, you told a

duke university group, and i quote, the supreme court dealt a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. ms. learner, what exactly -- ms. lerner, wanted to fix the problem caused by citizens united, what does that mean. could you please turn the mike on. >> my counsel advised me i have not waived my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and under his advice i decline

to answer any subject matter in this hearing. >> so you're not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem under citizens united. >> under the advice of counsel i invoke my fifth amendment right and refuse to answer the question. >> in february, 2011, you emailed your colleagues and the following. tea party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one please. cincy should probably not -- all in caps, have these cases.

what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully invoke my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question.

>> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again, she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multitier review and they will eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011, you requested that holly pawes obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads g.p.s. so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you.

ms. lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull crossroads g.p.s., karl roves' organization's application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and in trent sis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of

corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, on saturday, our committee's general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, i understand that ms. lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to the chairman -- excuse me. in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that was right. your lawyer in response to that question gave a one-word email response. yes. are you still seeking a one-week delay in order to testify? >> on the advice of my counsel i

respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further. i have no expectation that ms. lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we shall -- >> mr. chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that as a country, we're better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes to -- and now you're turning me off. i am a ranking member on this

committee and i want to ask a question. what's the big deal? may i ask my question? may i make my statement. >> you're all free to leave, we've adjourned but the gentleman may ask his question. >> mr. chairman, i have one procedural question and it goes to trying to help you get the information by the way you just asked. >> what is your question? >> i listen to you for the last 15-20 minutes. >> ms. lerner, you are released. >> i would like to use my time to make some brief points. the central year, republican accusation in this investigation -- >> we are adjourned. close it out.

>> before our committee there is a single document. >> ok, ok, ok. [inaudible] >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask a question? i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. eachve members up here, representing 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one-sided investigation. there is something wrong with that and it is absolutely un-american. >> hear, hear. >> we had a hearing. it is adjourned. i gave you the opportunity to ask a question.

>> chairman, what are you hiding? >> he's pleading the fifth. >> he went on fox news to discuss the republican talking point claiming that ms. lerner was at the center to "target conservative groups." provided to the committee. now interviewed 38 employees who have all told us the same thing. they have not suggested they this.bout none of the witnesses on the document have identified any of these organizations. the inspector general, russell george, told us the same thing. he found no evidence of any white house involvement or political motivation. instead, the very first line of

the results of his report says that it began with employees in cincinnati who i quote, developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words tea party in their names, end of quote. our committee confirmed this fact when we interviewed a screening group manager from cincinnati. this manager explained that his employees were the ones who first came up with the inappropriate search terms in 2010. i release this entire interview transcript eight months ago for anyone who wants to read it for themselves. the inspector general's report also found that they did not discover use of this criteria until a year later, in 2011. which when he learned about them, and i quote again from the report, she immediately directed

the criteria be changed, end of quote. mr. george's chief investigator also reviewed more than 5,500 emails from i.r.s. employees and, again, found no evidence of political motivation. over the past year, our committee has obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses. the i.r.s. has spent more than $14 million responding to congressional investigations. we have identified absolutely no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups. what we have identified, however, is evidence of gross mismanagement. ms. lerner failed to discover these employees were using these

search terms for a year and even after she ordered them to stop, they returned to using similar inappropriate criteria and she failed to inform congress about what she knew. so i do have serious questions for ms. lerner and i'm very disappointed that i will not be able to ask them today. but i do not support the republican conclusion that she waived her constitutional right nine months ago when she invoked the fifth amendment and i do not believe a court would uphold that conclusion. now, the chairman's gone, but i'd like to ask him a few procedural questions involving having a proper attorney. as i said a little bit earlier, her attorney -- if she loses something, nobody gains anything. on february 26, her attorney sent a letter to the committee saying that he met with the chairman's staff last month. at that meeting her attorney said, and i quote, the staff asked if i would provide a proper testimony she would give and i agreed to do that, end of quote. but that did not happen.

as i understand it, accepting the proffer does not grant immunity to the witness it. does not bind the committee in any way. instead, it allows the committee to obtain information without requiring the witness to waive her fifth amendment rights. i was not invited to the meeting last month when her attorney and i have not been included in any negotiations but it seems to me that the committee loses nothing by accepting this proffer and in fact we may gain important information. as a matter of fact, the very questions that the chairman just asked ms. lerner when she invoked her fifth amendment rights, those are the kind of questions that can be answered in a proffer. so i wanted to ask the chairman whether the committee can schedule a time, preferably this week, for all committee members

to hear the proffer from ms. lerner's attorney and with that i yield back. yes, sir. >> i just want to note for the record i find it supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally an american citizen has waived her fifth rights while actually exercising his fifth amendment rights to not answer your questions on behalf of the minority party of virginia. -- the minority of this committee.

>> the chairman of the committee, darrell issa, spoke to reporters followed by senator elijah cummings from maryland. >> we had a hearing today in the committee in which we asked ms. lerner whose lawyer had indicated that under certain conditions she would testify, she chose not to testify. after an exhaustive seven questions, i determined that she was not under any circumstances going to testify and pursuant to an already completed hearing other than her testimony, i adjourned. at this point we will continue our investigation into the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups without the testimony of ms. lerner. are there any questions?

>> why did you not let mr. cummings -- [inaudible] >> there were no -- he was not directing questions toward the witness and the committee had already adjourned. >> why did you adjourn before turning to your colleague and asking him -- >> pursuant to the committee, we were -- we recessed only to determine whether or not we could get her to give testimony. once it was determined she could not give testimony, there was no question before us. mr. cummings did not raise a point of privilege or a point of order and in fact i did recognize him when he said he had a question. he went into an opening statement. opening statements had already been completed. there were 40 members sitting at the dais and we had already adjourned. therefore i left because there was no question pending. >> [inaudible] >> because he was talking into a mike in an adjourned meeting.

the fact is mr. cummings came to make a point of his objections to the process week of been going through. he was actually slandering me at the moment that the mikes did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation. this had been a bipartisan investigation, by multiple committees in which we had testimony in multiple hearings including mr. jordan's subcommittee, in which it was very clear there was targeting of conservative groups, in which there were people who were acting outside the norm. we're going to continue our investigation. but just because mr. cummings would like to have a more convenient truth doesn't give him the right to make a speech. i went through a process of asking questions to determine whether ms. lerner would in fact testify. she made it clear through multiple questions that she would not do it and she would not do it with the delay that her attorney had asked for. i have exhausted any possibility of her speaking.

at this point we have attempted to, multiple ways, including making it clear we could do a one-week delay. they changed their mind and declined that. we're going to go forward with the investigation. mr. jordan has additional work to do. >> are you considering -- >> you know, that's certainly something that has to be considered. at this point we've been looking for the truth. we had hoped that ms. lerner, particularly in light of so many direct emails that are now with us in evidence, in both republicans and democrats both have the same things that we asked the questions on today, we had hoped to get answers from her. we'll continue to seek answers from other areas. but it's very clear that, for example, why did she ask for a cross roads g.p.s.'s application to be scrutinized by name? we will probably not know that because that is something that is only in her mind. >> you said that the hearing -- to find out whether or not she was going to talk or not.

you still asked several questions, yet you did not give her democratic colleague that same opportunity. >> he was not intending to ask her any questions. it had been determined that she wouldn't -- >> he didn't even have the chance. >> mr. cummings said he had questions to ask. instead he began making an opening statement. even after the committee had been adjourned. therefore the committee stood adjourned. >> how much of this is a political play for republicans in the election? >> none, not a shred of it. not a smidgen of it. not a smidgen of it. the fact is that this targeting is something that the president initially came out outraged against, as we were. as we began our investigation we discovered that there was clear differential treatment of conservative groups, particularly if their name included patriot or tea party. and for some reason the administration has gone from supportive of this kind of bad behavior when they said it was only in cincinnati, to opposing and saying there isn't a smidgen

of evidence. >> there's concern among the republican leadership that the object of this will effect -- >> i have no idea what's in the minds of republicans other than the ones on this committee. the ones on this committee have sat through hearings, reviewed information and are prepared to continue the investigation like we do all our investigations. any other questions? as you could see from our questioning today, we have continued to gather facts around ms. lerner's absence of testimony. it would have allowed us to bring this investigation to a probably pretty quick close if she'd been willing to answer those questions. without it, we will undoubtedly have a few more questions to try to find out things that she could have answered quickly today. >> are you still confident you'll get to the bottom of this? >> it may well be that we have gotten to the bottom of it. at this point roads lead to ms. lerner.

the witness who took the fifth. and she becomes one of the key characters at this point. had she been willing to explain those emails which were provided through separate subpoenas, then we could have perhaps brought this to a close. without that it may dead end with ms. lerner. >> what's the process of pursuing contempt? >> there's committee rules on that, i'll go through it. we're going to confer afterwards. any other questions, i think mr. cummings would like time. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to -- we're going to there's cameras everywhere. we will confer to see our next steps. but ms. lerner is not our

primary concern today. nor is the contempt. obviously we're going to continue investigating others at the i.r.s. and make a determination of how we can, you know, you asked a question earlier of, do you think she's going to testify? i have less than likely, but there is in fact a possibility that given a federal judge's orders she would testify. so we're going to have to consider all of those possibilities of whether or not there's any way to get testimony by a key character who very, very clearly had information and isn't willing to give it to us. thank you. ok, thank you. >> today i wanted to make clear that from the very beginning this has been an effort to blame the white house for or claim that the white house targeted

political enemies of the president through the i.r.s. we have now interviewed 38 i.r.s. employees, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the i.r.s. have been reviewed. $14 million-plus and counting in man hours have been expended in addressing the various investigations with regard to the i.r.s. and still there has not been any evidence whatsoever that there was political motivation in regard to this targeting and in regard to these efforts, nor has there been any evidence with regard to the white house having anything to do with what the i.r.s. was doing in this case. what i was trying to get to today was, first of all, to make

the statement that i just made. but to also do something else. apparently the attorney for ms. lerner had said at some point that he might be willing to give a proffer. a proffer is basically an attorney saying what his client would say. now, if you'll note, there were at least four or five, maybe six questions that chairman issa asked and i would have loved to have heard the answers to those questions too. but a proffer would have allowed us to -- republicans and democrats -- to listen to what the attorney in his own words would have said that his client would have said. so we would at least have the information that the chairman was going after. that doesn't stop him from

moving on contempt, it doesn't protect her, none of that. but at least it would have given us an opportunity to hear what the answers would have been. i want to get to the bottom of this too. after all, it's been more than nine months and i want you to be reminded that mr. george, the i.g., who was -- we -- appointed by a republican president said that in all of his work he found no political motivation and he found no white house involvement in this whatsoever. and so, that's what it was all about. today i felt that it was appropriate that the members of the democratic side have their say. as you can see, we were basically shut out completely and i continuously remind people that each one of us represents 700,000 people-plus.

that we bring something to this table too. and that we want to make sure that we get to the truth. i am tired of cherry picking information, of sending just a few lines from various transcripts, and what we want is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that's all we want. and so you saw another example today of here we were ready to listen to ms. lerner, our members wanted to hear from her, and just for the ranking member to be able to make a statement and the chairman was well aware that i wanted to make a statement and ask a question, but he shut down the hearing. ladies and gentlemen, we're better than that. we're a better country than that, we're a better committee than that, and i said to the chairman on many occasions that when things like this happen it

goes against the integrity of the committee. when we don't seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we cherry pick it goes against the integrity of the committee. i remind you and as i close with this, that this is a committee of oversight and government reform. but in order to reform you have to have all the facts. you can't just leave out the facts. that you don't like. and include the ones that you do. it doesn't work that way. no court that i know of operates like that and no committee should. we're better than that and hopefully we'll move forward in a way where we're working together. >> [inaudible] >> you saw what happened. that wasn't bipartisan. let me tell you something. she just requested the question, was this a bipartisan hearing? not one member of the democratic side had an opportunity to say one syllable before the chairman adjourned.

that's not bipartisan. wait a minute, hold on. when the negotiations were held, these so-called negotiations with the lawyer, we weren't invited to that. democrats weren't invited to that. the press got the report, the republican report, on the i.r.s., got the report yesterday. some of you all got it. have we gotten it yet? we still don't have it. is that bipartisan? no. that is not bipartisan. >> you have in your long career ever heard anyone say shut it down and not allow a member -- >> only in this committee. it's happened once or twice in this committee already this year. and it was by chairman issa. >> chairman issa said this was not a political -- there's no political connection to this investigation, to the elections in november. you have had any conversations with senior members of the democratic party about how this will play out -- >> no, no, i have not. what we have done, and i applaud my members of my committee, i'm very proud of them, they've come here seeking the truth.

we really do -- and i've said this many times. it is very important for us to make sure that government operates properly and operates effectively and efficiently. and all of our members are determined to make that happen. period. and i've said it again, no matter where the evidence may lead, let's go down that path. but don't do the things that i've seen issa do where if he doesn't like something he doesn't present it. the fella -- the first person -- it's interesting that we have yet to have before us the man who said he started all of this. the conservative republican in cincinnati who said, a 21-year veteran of the i.r.s., who said this is not political. that he did it because he was trying to figure out how to deal with the c-4's. so we'll hopefully again move forward from here. but i just wanted to make it clear as to what happened in there.

thank you. i'm not going to get into disrespect. i've been practicing law for 30, 40 years. and so you see these kind of things, but the thing that we are determined is not to be distracted. to get to the truth. and so i see it as a distraction. i don't worry about the disrespect. ok? thank you. >> [inaudible] >> no, just based upon the experts that we talked to, a man who used to be counsel for ethics, is it ethics? yeah. house counsel. he says she didn't waive. i think that when it comes to rights, i think we have to be careful with people's rights. and, again, we have to keep in mind that before she came in the first time, her lawyer sent a letter saying that she was going to take advantage of her fifth amendment rights and then she came in and said the same thing.

so i think her intention was definitely to do that. there may be differing opinions but we felt comfortable that -- and keep in mind, one of the things i did also ask for before we voted the last time was to bring in the experts and let the committee have an opportunity to hear from the experts. again, chairman issa refused that. i got to go, guys. thank you all. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house panel meets to discuss options in the ukraine. -- livee introduced coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. on c-span two, a conversation with dan pfeiffer. he will talk to political's correspondent.

o's correspondent. --house approved the delay republicans have forced a root -- vote to repeal the health care law. the vote was 250-160. 27 democrats joined to 23 republicans. -- 223 republicans. the house is on -- support of h.r. 4118, the simple fairness act, which would give americans some much-needed relief from the added costs of obamacare. i don't need to remind the american people about the failed launch of the health care law but a failed website is the least of americans' concerns. millions of americans, including over 200,000 in my home state of michigan, went out to the mailbox and found that the health care plan they

had and liked was canceled. millions of americans are having their hours and employer struggle with this complex law. many find they can no longer access the care they relied on from their local doctor or hospital. millions of americans are left wondering what happened to their promise $2,500 reduction in premiums. and next year millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals. the american people have paid over and over for this health care law. they paid higher premiums, they paid having their hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. the last thing this law should do is penalize americans for being unable to purchase a plan on healthcare.gov either because of multiple web failures to they were unable to find an affordable plan. . the obama administration unilaterally exempted businesses

from the tax for 2014. simple fairness demands that congress provide the same relief to hardworking americans. when congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking americans, we should. every member here has heard from a frustrated constituent. this shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. granting relief for hardworking americans is only fair. voting yes on h.r. 4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. leffy: i yield myself such time as i may consume. -- mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. without objection. well, here they go again. but this time it's the 50th time

that house republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to undermine the affordable care act. ut this 50th time is no golden anniversary. it's a house republican goose egg for millions of americans. just look at this, 50 votes. with zero votes to raise the minimum wage. zero votes to renew unemployment insurance. zero votes to guarantee paycheck fairness. zero votes to pass immigration reform. so let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact of this if it became law. in 2014 we would see an additional one million uninsured. one million. in 2015, two million more people would be uninsured if the

individual mandate stayed in effect. and in 2016 another million people. and the irony of this, and i think my colleagues on the democratic side will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a republican idea. it was formed in the conservative heritage foundation in the 1980's, and throat -- throughout the 1990's republicans argued its merits. it was one of the foundations of e massachusetts law, its parent, at least in good measure, was governor mitt romney. i met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance carrier in massachusetts.

he explained how it's working, 97%, 98% of the people are covered. that law has sparked an improvement in the delivery of health care. in the restructuring of health care delivery systems. so here we are instead of constructive action essentially we have a republican demolition squad. can any law be made perfect? yes, including this. but that isn't what the republicans are after today. they have never come up with their own plan. indeed, they are a wrecking crew. america deserves much better. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness. i look forward to debating this legislation on the house floor. on february 10 of this year, the department of the treasury announced that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. this delay in the president's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the administration announced last july which exempted all large businesses from the employer mandate penalty until 2015. amidst all of these delays it's easy to forget that the employer mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the affordable care act to be in effect right now. the president has now acted unilaterally on two separate occasions to give big businesses

relief from this tax burden. however he has not leveled the playing field for the millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the individual mandate tax. aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals, american families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of the law issued via blog post s. this has led to confusion, frustration, and ultimately difficulty in complying with the law. nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only four million americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov website. this means that with less than a month to go in this initial open

enrollment period, we are still three million enrollees short of the original c.b.o. projection of seven million enrollees, one that even the administration once touted as its goal. enrollment is still two million enrollees short of c.b.o.'s new projection of six million enrollees. these millions can be added to the tens of millions of other american individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty. in my state, kansas, the latest consensus information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. at the last count only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on healthcare.gov. unlike businesses, the president has offered no relief for these individuals who do not or are unable to comply with the law's

mandates. i believe that this is simply not fair and the house must act to provide parody for these folks. that's why i have introduced this bill under consideration today. h.r. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate penalty for one year. this means that the individual mandate penalty would be zeroed out this year. it would raise to $95 or 1% of income in 2015. to $325 or 2% of income in 2016. and $6 5, or 2.5% of income for 2017 and thereafter. i believe this is a simple concept and considering the circumstances i applaud this committee for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all americans under the president's health care law. the osing i'd ask this, if president can delay the employer mandate, where's the relief for

everyone else? it's time to give relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone. congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all. thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my special pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, with whom those of us on ways and means have worked all these years on health care reform, one of the authors of this bill, mr. waxman, the ranking member of energy and commerce, from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. the truth of the matter is no matter how many votes the republicans cast to repeal the affordable care act, and no matter how many distortions they

spread about the law, there are some facts they cannot change. they cannot change the fact that because the affordable care act nobody in america can ever again be denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. they cannot change the fact that a woman can never be charged more than a man for the same coverage. they cannot change the fact that a family will never again be left without coverage just because their child's hospital bills got too high. these facts are stubborn. they are inconvenient for my republican colleagues, so they ignore them and they deny them. republicans have voted or will today 50 times to try to take away the basic security and freedom guaranteed by the

affordable care act. they offer absolutely no solution for the tens of millions of americans who need health care coverage that is secure and affordable. they have voted to repeal the law, but they have never once voted for a replacement. madam speaker, if the republicans have a solution that will expand coverage, in a will end discrimination -- that will end discrimination by insurance companies, that will reduce the deficit, they need to bring it up for a vote, but they do not have solutions. what they want to do is deny health insurance coverage to millions of americans. that's a shame. and i think we are wasting our time today voting again to turn our backs on the bill that will offer so much to the american people. don't we have anything else to do? all we seem to do is deny

science, which is the bill that will be coming up next, the republicans want to stop e.p.a. from dealing with the climate change issue, or denying the rights of people to get health insurance. which the republicans have voted over and over again to do. i urge we vote no on this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, chairman kevin brady, our chair of the ways and means health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the simple fairness act and thank the leadership, the gentlelady from kansas, on this area. back home my people are frightened about the affordable care act. they don't think it's a waste of time to be trying to fix and repeal and stop this. they are paying a very steep

price for it. president obama made them some big promises when he sold them this health care plan. he promised americans could keep the plan they like. he promised lower health care costs. he promised a functioning website he said would work as good as amazon. the white house hasn't delivered on any of these promises. where i'm from, if you make a mistake, if you don't keep your promise, you step up and fix it. you don't blame those who you've hurt. no american should have to pay a penalty because obamacare fell short of its promises. no american should vice president to pay a penalty pause the website couldn't accept their application or deliver the correct information. no american shouldn't be penalized for trying days on end to purchase a plan only to decide it was too expensive. no american should be penalized because they are concerned about the security of their private information on this government website. and no american should be penalized by the i.r.s. because of sticker shock or deciding not

to purchase the plan that's so much more expensive than what was promised. president obama gave big business a break. he deserves to give average americans the same type of break as well. simple fairness requires that we do the same for the miles per hour people. that's all this is about. it's all we are doing today. treating average americans who are hurt by the affordable care act the way the white house helped big business with the same exact problems. the american people deserve the same relief. we ought to give it to them. that's why this bill is called the fairness act and deserves our support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, and i ask that the balance of our time be managed by mr. mcdermott, the ranking member on the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, madam

speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you. my colleagues, there's a cancer growing in the republican party in the house of representatives. and as much as the democrat that i am, i hate to see this happen because our government is based on a two-party system. the republican party in the house they're doing the same insane things 50 times without getting the same results. it's bad enough that all of us ve to go down in political favoritism or our reputations go down, but this small group of people are going far enough

now that the national republican party has no credibility. i will not embarrass anybody by asking them just who do you think nationally should serve our country from, pardon the expression, the republican party? you have none. somewhere along the line this insanity has to stop because you're not beating up on democrats. you're beating up on people that have no health insurance. if you don't like the president, if you don't like this bill, let's talk about the millions of people that have no health insurance instead of just for the 50th time saying you don't like the bill. it's the law. the house and the senate have signed it. the supreme court has verified it. the president can veto anything you do if something did happen. why don't we talk about

immigration reform? rebuild the integrity of your great party from past years. why don't we talk about the minimum wage where all candidates would say if you work hard in america and do the right thing then you can achieve anything that you want? if you're middle class, you can achieve poverty. if you're poverty, you can't even get a decent wage for working. we could many things do. don't you remember the days before the affordable care act when you had constituents coming in saying i can't get insurance? how about the days where people say, my husband was in the hospital and they cut off insurance? or even worse, i tried to get surance and they told me i used -- and i can't get insurance? or the guy that's working and he's on his parents' insurance and he's 26 years old? don't you have any of these

people in congressional districts? are all your people well and can do without health insurance? how do you go home and explain that we do have a bill and instead of perfecting it, supporting it, educating your people how they can get health insurance that you have tried once, you have tried 10 times, 20 times, 30 times, 40 times, 50 times to derail and destroy it? i don't know how you get away with this. i don't know what you put in the water that you feed your constituents, but it certainly doesn't make sense that you can try to destroy and at the same time knock the substitute. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes

to the gentleman from ohio, our friend and colleague on the house ways and means committee, jim renacci. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. renacci: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4118, the simple fairness act. according to a recent gallup poll, 51% of americans disapprove of the president's health care law and for good reason. the rollout of the failed misguided law was nothing short of disast russ. it's played whips by preventing many americans from purchasing health insurance from the federal and state exchanges. through the president's -- though the president promised lower costs, many are facing the reality of higher premiums and a steep penalty if they cannot afford the plans that are offered. recently, the administration delayed the employer mandate for a second time, leaving intact the mandate that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. the bill before us today would

ensure that no american would be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty tax in 2014. it is evident to this chamber and americans across the country that the president's health care law is too complex, too costly and completely unworkable. ultimately, this law should be fully repealed. but i'm here today because i believe that all hardworking americans deserve relief from the president's health care law. congress should afford individuals the same advantage the administration is giving to businesses and delay the individual mandate. it's simply common sense. i ask my colleagues to come together and pass this important bill and send it to the president to be signed into law. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, today is a little like

groundhog day. the republican leadership has come out here and tried to decide what the weather would be and they're going to get the same answer that they've gotten 49 times before. they can pass it from here but it's not going to change anything. we've seen this poorly designed, sadly staged bit of g.o.p. political theater before. 50 times. this is the 50th vote of this koch rty, co -- brothers-led congress to crash the affordable care act. americans want affordable herk and a.c.a. delivers it to them. a.c.a. has saved lives. it's brought down our spending. new fraud measures, including new authorities imposing payment suspensions and more rigorous provider enrollment procedures put into law by a.c.a. helped the federal government recover $4.3 billion in taxpayers from individuals

and companies that tried to defraud the health care programs. the a.c.a. is delivering historic results for the american people, and yet the republican leadership is hell-bent on a 50th stroke. regardless of the fact that our economic system remains stuck in neutral, nothing has been done about jobs, unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage and so forth. but if that was all that was going on here, this would still be insulting and absurd. the bill under consideration day, h.r. 4118, is virtually identical to h.r. 2668, a bill passed on the 17th of july, 2013. the republicans have already passed this bill to delay the individual mandate, something the c.b.o. knows will result in higher insurance premiums. so beyond wasting time and engaging in stunts designed to make the producers of fox news

happy, republicans want to return americans to the days before a.c.a. when a cancer victim couldn't get covered and seniors couldn't get their prescriptions, to the day when wage workers who paid hundreds of dollars out of pocket went without, the days of this ever-changing list of pre-existing conditions that companies tried to drop coverage. the real business of the congress should be to stand up for those americans and millions more like them. that's what the american people want. that's what the american people deserve. that's why they want us to vote no. jim mccrery, 2000, march, said in an article in "the american atlantic monthly" that an employer and an individual mandate was essential. i can't understand the republicans saying we don't

want everybody to play, we don't want everybody according to their ability to be in. why are you so eager to let people out the door, because they're going to wind up in the emergency room? have no doubt they will be getting health care but they won't pay for it. you're saying, that's ok with us. we like people who are free riders. that's not america. we all are supposed to do our part, and that's why everyone here should vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, our friend and colleague on house ways and means committee, todd young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. as we approach the deadline for enrolling in obamacare sanction insurance, it's become clear that the system is not working as its supporters intended. for months we've been learning

about website problems, spiking premiums and lost coverage. for months we've seen an underwe will aming of -- underwhelming of signups. for months we've heard heartwrenching stories from our districts about the negative impact, this botched rollout has had on hardworking american families. unfortunately for those families, the white house and those who help bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to americans' concerns. meanwhile, at the urging of the business community, we have the white house delay the employer mandate tax twice. what must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by obamacare supporters? should they form trade organizations and hire a lobbyist so that maybe president obama and champions of this law will listen?

well, guess what. my constituents did hire someone to lobby on their behalf when they elected me to congress. it's simply not fair when businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do not. i'm all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it's confusing and it's cumbersome for our businesses, but i also feel very strongly the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our businesses. i believe that individuals and families deserve the same sort of delay, so on behalf of my constituents in indiana's ninth district and on behalf of all of yours, i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i

yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. -- speaker pro tempore: mr. mcdermott: i give three minutes to mr. davis from chicago first. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise in strong opposition h.r. 4118, the 50th vote to repeal the health care act which passed and implemented with decreased coverage and increase the number of people who are not insured by as much as 11 million people in this country. it's unbelievable that we would be on the floor voting for the 50th time to try and turn back the clock on millions of americans who have been denied health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition, didn't have enough money or did not have accessibility to facilities.

in illinois, over 256,000 individuals benefit from the affordable care act. nationally, more than four million americans have enrolled in private plans with 82% receiving premium tax credits to make health insurance more affordable. more than 3.1 million young adults have access to health insurance by remaining on their parents' plans onto age 26. millions more americans have secured new coverage through the medicaid expansion. rather than decreasing or taking away the republican leadership and all of us ought to be increasing and providing. we ought to be affording individuals the opportunity to get insurance because they're unemployed, to get a check. and so it's amazing that rather than giving we would be talking about taking, taking away when

the law says and all of us know that everybody ought to have access to quality health care. i oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from tennessee, dr. phil roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentlelady for recognizing me. madam speaker, i rise in support of the simple fairness act and a level playing field for all americans. in the span about of about seven -- of about seven months, the obama administration has done twice of providing relief for big businesses. working families are forced to comply with the individual mandate. over the last year, president obama's broken promises on health care become too numerous

to count. americans were told if they like their health care plan they could keep it. well, tell that to the 8 ,000 tennesseans -- 82,000 tennesseans who were forced out of their health care because of obamacare. they said that obamacare would lower the cost of health insurance. explain that to the 11 million people that see their premiums increased. we were told by the democratic leader, obamacare would create jobs. i invite her to have a conversation with the workers at mountain state's health alliance in my district who lost their jobs. even the c.b.o. agrees that this law is discouraging work. throughout the implementation of obamacare, the one thing that the president has held firm on is that working families must buy insurance or else. . he promised a veetrooo on thising commonsense legislation simply because it delays pents

for one year. here in the people's house we should stand for their interest and treat people the same as big businesses. it's only fair. mr. speaker, i would argue that if this bill is doing so well, why would only 34% of the people in this country approve of it? i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. it's a plsh sure for me to follow my good friend, dr. phil roe, on the floor because we spent last weekend speaking of health care, along with mr. mcdermott, in houston, texas, at a fabulous conference by the nonpartisan commonwealth fund to be able to deal meaningfully with health care problems and

bringing people together in a bipartisan basis to discuss them. now, i know that some things we have to do and got to come to the floor to repeal this 50 times, but i would hope that sooner rather than later we reach a point where we can focus on things that bring americans together, not divide them. something that will improve the quality of health care and actually has nothing to do with spending money, new mandates, or obamacare. i'm referring to the legislation that i'm pleased to have co-sponsored with my good friend, dr. roe, h.r. 1173, the personalize your health care bill. it has over 50 bipartisan co-sponsors. it would enable, for the first time, to provide voluntary consultation on advanced life care planning for medicare and

medicaid. every five years or when somebody becomes first eligible, it would provide grants to establish and expand programs for physician ordered for life sustaining treatment. it would require that certified electronic health records could display current advance directives and physician orders for sustaining treatment. bear in mind right now every day there are people who are getting health care at their most critical, vulnerable moments, at the end of life, that is not necessarily what they want. the majority of americans would rather spend their last hours or days surrounded by their families, at home. but very few americans actually are able to do that. they end up in an i.c.u., not necessarily because that's their choice, but because their

choices haven't been recorded and haven't been respected. it's fascinating to me that dr. billy graham, in his recent book, talks about the christian responsibility to spare one's family from impossible decisions like that. that it's the christian responsibility to have that conversation in advance, execute the appropriate papers, and make sure nobody has to guess about whether a loved one wants to be in an i.c.u. or at home. dr. bill frist, fellow tennessean of my friend, dr. roe, had an op-ed in politico a few months ago, talking about his experience. dr. frist was former republican majority leader in the senate. but he's also a respected physician. may i have another minute? mr. mcdermott: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: he's also a respected heart surgeon who's

faced families in this circumstance and he he knows that they need information, they need help, and that their wishes need to be respected. now, maybe, instead of repealing obamacare the 51st or 58th or the 100th time, legislation that's not going to go any place, maybe we could take a little bit of a time-out and consider the legislation that dr. roe and i have worked on that's not partisan, that doesn't have anything to do with obamacare, that would enable families in their time of need to know what their choices are and to make sure that their choices, whatever they might be, are respected. they are respected in their city, they are respected across state lines. that they protect their family and that they get the care they want and they need as they approach end of life. mr. speaker, i hope that we will find time this year from passing

post office renaming and what not, this is a piece of legislation that could come to the floor on the suspension calendar and would make a difference for families all across america. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas. ms. jenkins: i'd like to yield one minute to our current republican house majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, eric cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady and congratulate her on her leadership for this bill and making sure that we reinsert a notion of fairness back into the law for the people of this country. mr. speaker, i do rise today in support of the simple fairness act. for the past few months the president's health care law has been wreaking havoc on the american people.

after the administration's disastrous launch of the exchanges, obamacare has been anything but what the president had promised it would be. it has become very clear that this law is doing more harm than good. we now know that obamacare has pushed up to five million people off the health care plan they liked. and many are now being denied the care they had. to make matters worse, many of these new plans will force americans to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. this leaves them with a limited number of options for health care coverage. many folks who are also finding out that they cannot keep the doctor or the pediatrician that they want to go to and trusted. to put it simply, this is not how america should work. the american people deserve

better. yet time and again the obama administration has shown its true colors by putting politics irst and unilaterally delaying parts of the law to avoid political repercussions. this has become most evident by the administration's delay in the employee mandate for big businesses. the s refusal to delay individual mandate for working americans. just yesterday it was reported the administration will announce another major unilateral delay on their minimum coverage requirements to, and i quote, the publication, "the hill," to ease election pressure on democrats. doesn't it say something that the authors of this legislation are worried that it's being implemented before they face

voters again? and i ask, will future presidents perhaps of our party be able to simply delay or cancel all or part of obamacare? will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle withhold complaint then? there is no greater indictment of this law or proof of its failure than the fear that full implementation invokes in its authors. it is not fair to pick and choose which parts of an unpopular law should be enforced at the expense of working individuals for political expediency. and it's just not fair that businesses and insurance companies get delays and exemptions and not hardworking americans. it's not fair. millions of americans all over the country are already living paycheck to paycheck. the last thing they need is another brazen attack on their pocketbooks from a health care

law they don't want, they didn't ask for, and that doesn't work for them. through this administration's ad hoc implementation of obamacare, some people won't have to pay the penalty, but others will. ere's who i'm concerned about. and the bill before us today protects. the single mom who for whatever reason ended up without insurance for several months. she doesn't need a new tax bill from uncle sam for hundreds of dollars because she can't access the coverage that washington says she must. she could use that money to pay the heating bill or buy groceries for her children. all americans, not just some, but all americans deserve a delay from the punishing financial penalties of the president's health care law. this is our chance to make it happen. with the legislation before us today, no one in this country

would be forced to pay the individual mandate tax in 2014. this is an opportunity to stop the political games and put working americans first. let's stand together and support the simple fairness act in bipartisan fashion and give our constituents some relief from the financial burdens of obamacare. i'd like to thank chairman dave camp and representative lynn jenkins for their hard work on this issue and on behalf of working americans. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, could you give us the time? the speaker pro tempore: you have 12 minutes. mr. mcdermott: the republicans? the speaker pro tempore: 15 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas. missening -- ms. jenkins: i would like to the two minutes to chairman of the republican committee, mr. steve scalise. mr. scalise: i thank the gentlelady from kansas for her leadership on this bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. this is providing fairness for hardworking taxpayers. if you look how the president's health care law is being implemented, mr. speaker, you've got the president literally saying he's going to give exemption after exemption after exemption to the political class, to a select few who have special interest protections here in washington. that the president by the way has said big businesses can get exemptions from obamacare. the prs has said -- president has said insurance companies can get exemptions from obamacare. then when it comes to hardworking taxpayers, families out there struggling under the weight of this law, the president says no. you can't have that same exemption that he's given to everybody else.

so what we are saying here, mr. speaker, is if these exemptions are good enough for big businesses, and if these exemptions are good enough for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the president's given us, and under the weight of this unworkable law that the president himself is acknowledging is unworkable by giving all these exemptions away to everybody else? now, if you look at the law, mr. speaker, the president doesn't have the legal authority to just waive a law, to literally take out a pen and change the law. what the president does have is the ability to work with us in congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this bill it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking taxpayers that same exemption, but this law, obamacare, is built on a foundation of broken promises. if you like what you have, you can keep it. of course it's probably the most broken promise in political history. but there's more, the president said i